I froze for a second because the scope is genuinely absurd.
Acknowledge that an unlimited budget doesn't eliminate trade-offs—it shifts them to coordination, prioritization, and execution. Frame the climate crisis as a portfolio of bets across mitigation, adaptation, and carbon removal, and propose a phased, measurable strategy that leverages Google's unique strengths in AI, data, and platforms.
Pro tip: Show that you understand the difference between funding and impact: unlimited money can't buy time, political will, or behavior change. Emphasize that you'd invest in scalable, evidence-based solutions and set up rapid feedback loops to learn and pivot.
Clarify the scope: are we aiming to limit warming to 1.5°C, accelerate adaptation, or both? Define measurable outcomes like gigatons of CO2 reduced, people protected from climate impacts, and cost per ton.
Identify high-leverage areas: clean energy, transportation, industry, agriculture, carbon removal, and adaptation. Use impact, feasibility, and time-to-scale to prioritize a portfolio of initiatives.
Focus on where Google can add outsized value: AI for climate modeling, optimization of energy grids, data platforms for monitoring, and products that empower billions of users to make sustainable choices.
Balance immediate actions (e.g., funding proven solutions, policy advocacy) with moonshot investments (e.g., fusion, direct air capture). Set milestones and kill criteria to reallocate resources.
Create a cross-functional team with external experts, set up transparent reporting, and use OKRs to track progress. Iterate based on data and adapt to new scientific and technological developments.
AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.